Hypocrisy alert: Lots of orators at GOP conclave have had their snouts at the public trough

The laughable theme of this week’s Republican National Convention — “We Built This” — is based entirely on a misquotation of something President Obama said and has been roundly denounced by fact-checkers (HERE, for example).

But the hypocrisy is compounded by the fact that no fewer than 11 of the speakers at yesterday’s convention doings are people who have been more than eager to suckle at the government teat, as we see HERE.

For example:

Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, when touting this Congress’ record of “implementing free enterprise policies that create jobs, cutting spending and repealing Obamacare,” failed to mention that — despite his very public opposition to the American Recovery Act in 2009, he secretly requested $81 million in stimulus money from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Share:

4 Comments

That said, there’s one specific form of “stimulus hypocrisy” argument that I think is completely invalid—this thing where members of Congress get dinged for writing letters in support of grants for their district even while denouncing the stimulus bill that funded the grants as useless.

Here’s why:

Start by imagining that stimulus opponents are right. Imagine a situation in which stimulus is useless. The unemployment rate is at 5.5 percent with core inflation holding steady at 1.9 percent, during which headline inflation runs higher than that as a drought pushes corn prices up. Now the president proposes a gigantic deficit-financed military construction program and argues that it’s not just good for national security but it’ll be a jobs bonanza. The right answer is that it may be necessary for national security, but it won’t lead to any net jobs. There’s not nearly enough slack and idle resources in the economy, so a big defense buildup would be inflationary. To avoid the inflation, the Federal Reserve will need to let interest rates rise. That means production and employment will simply shift out of interest-sensitive sectors (housing, capital goods production, consumer durables) and into military equipment. Members of Congress who aren’t persuaded by the national security argument should vote no on this bill.

But if it passes anyway, they ought to do everything they can to make sure their district gets as many contracts as possible.

That’s not despite the fact that the stimulus is a bad idea, it’s precisely because the stimulus is a bad idea. If all the stimulus does is shift resources around, then it’s crucially important to your constituents to make sure that resources are shifted into your district rather than out of your district. Failing to advocate aggressively for your constituents will be terrible for them.

I’d have more respect for a GOPer if he/she simply stood up and said “I didn’t take any stimulus money, I don’t believe in pork and if my constituents don’t agree with that, they can vote me out.” But, that will never happen and the wingnuts will continue to wallow in their own trough of hypocrisy.

The fact is is that government stimulates free enterprise and free enterprise stimulates government. It’s laughable to believe otherwise.

My opinion is as I’ve stated. It isn’t hypocritical for an elected official to oppose a direction the government is headed but then serve his or her constituents by asking that they receive the funds that are then appropriated.

No more so than it is hypocritical for a politician to oppose a new law,but once it is enacted, follow the law.

This is similar to the argument that I have with Pat every 6 months or so when he accuses me of being a hypocrite for “sucking off of the government teat” because I accept Medicare and Medicaid in my practice and had part of my education subsidized by federal dollars.

The system is what it is and we are all obligated to follow the rules, whether we like them or not. Even more so in the case of an elected official who is not serving themselves but rather all of their constituents.

Your opinion is:

“The fact is is that government stimulates free enterprise and free enterprise stimulates government. It’s laughable to believe otherwise.”

Of course that statement is true, to a point. Consequences for failure of the 2 entities are entirely different though. Free enterprise raises capital, sells a product or service and (if allowed to fail) goes out of business when they fail to compete.

What happens to government when they spend and commit to spend more money than they can possibly hope to raise? How does that then impact the citizens that the government is elected to serve?